lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond error behaviour


From: Noeck
Subject: Re: Lilypond error behaviour
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:31:51 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

Thanks Thomas,

> We do this already, (but see below for multi-file-compilation).

Ok, that's good.

> Actually, we have even more fine-grained errors/warnings/messages.
> But if any problem causes an _error_  of any kind (not a warning),
> even a non_fatal_error, LilyPond throws a fatal error _after_ having
> tried to create a pdf.
> 
> In short:
> If error detected?
> 1. print to terminal the kind of the error, with location
> 2. create pdf, if non_fatal_error
> 3. throw a fatal error
> 
> As far as I know, the third point was introduced, because the first
> was ignored far too often.

Ok, then why is this 3. called fatal? Wouldn't it make sense to tell the
user at the end: severe (a) error(s) occured and exit with a non-zero
exit code? But not call it a failed file or fatal?

>> nothing was produced
> 
> Doesn't work for multi-file-compilation.

My expectation would be that the worst error wins (and I realize that
this differs from what I wrote before). So, it is fatal if any output
could not be produced and it has a severe error if any severe error occured.
I don't know if that's possible but it seems likely to me.

> So, how to do it reasonable different?

As above: Call the rethrown 'fatal error' (3) 'severe error'.

Cheers,
Joram



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]